Brooklyn's own website puts its data as "for the entering class of 2008" -- which is the current year and the same one used by US News. If there is a rational explanation, I assume the Deans who had been contacted by lawschoolheadlines.com would have responded by now with one.

Now I can understand why the Madoff Ponzi scheme survived for so long in the face of so much evidence to doubt it over the years.

::sighs::

I really don't understand your investment in this. At least on your blog you have the excuse that it's drummed up traffic to a whopping 8 (assuming they're unique) commenters.

There's no good reason for Brooklyn to respond immediately to unsubstantiated accusations on a one-bit blog, especially if it doesn't know what happened because it submitted the correct data. And honestly, you're quibbling over whether the rankings were calculated with a median LSAT of 163 or a median LSAT of 162. What, really, would such a difference make in the quality of the education one receives at Brooklyn? I have plenty of complaints about my school, but the intelligence of my peers is certainly not one of them.

Brooklyn's own website puts its data as "for the entering class of 2008" -- which is the current year and the same one used by US News. If there is a rational explanation, I assume the Deans who had been contacted by lawschoolheadlines.com would have responded by now with one.

Now I can understand why the Madoff Ponzi scheme survived for so long in the face of so much evidence to doubt it over the years.

::sighs::

I really don't understand your investment in this. At least on your blog you have the excuse that it's drummed up traffic to a whopping 8 (assuming they're unique) commenters.

There's no good reason for Brooklyn to respond immediately to unsubstantiated accusations on a one-bit blog, especially if it doesn't know what happened because it submitted the correct data. And honestly, you're quibbling over whether the rankings were calculated with a median LSAT of 163 or a median LSAT of 162. What, really, would such a difference make in the quality of the education one receives at Brooklyn? I have plenty of complaints about my school, but the intelligence of my peers is certainly not one of them.

It would appear that most were just there to read the leaked rankings, as there are very few comments.

I don't understand what comments have to do with anything? My blog has no comments.

Most blogs that allow unmoderated comments (as your blog does not, from what I can tell) have more spam than LSH has legit comments. Regardless, it's clear that the huge bump in its readership is from publishing the U.S. News rankings. I think it's just as obvious that it is now trying to retain those potential new readers by sensational and irresponsible accusations. I would be embarrassed to be associated with that blog, but YMMV.

I'm very comfortable on the network and don't see any thing wrong with what LSH said about the situation. Brooklyn doesn't have to contact the website directly, but I think this situation merits some kind of release.

I'm very comfortable on the network and don't see any thing wrong with what LSH said about the situation. Brooklyn doesn't have to contact the website directly, but I think this situation merits some kind of release.

Perhaps it's just the defense attorney in me, but I think there's a big leap between saying, "It looks like there's some inconsistency in the data that benefits Brooklyn," and saying, "Brooklyn probably lied about its data to game the rankings." There are plenty of other inconsistencies in the data and mistakes in the rankings that likely benefited some schools and hurt others, yet this is the only one that the blog attributes to a particular school's affirmative misrepresentations. My guess is rather that most of these inconsistencies and errors stem from uneven communications about new methodologies, rookie mistakes with new rankings like the part-time list, and a rush to publish the already-late Best Colleges issue, which is the only thing that's keeping USNWR afloat. I frankly think it's absurd to suggest that Brooklyn lied without any evidence other than the fact that it may have benefited from what looks like potentially bad data. There's no proof, even, that the class median -- what the rankings are based on, after all -- isn't 163. In any case, LSH's repeated accusations are certainly not good journalism.

US News only lists 25th -75th percentile with its rankings -- and if Brooklyn's data published elsewhere is correct the 25th percentile should be 159 rather than 162 -- a big difference.

It is just that the overly reported LSAT score looks like the one thing that makes Brooklyn ranked so high. Look at Brooklyn's bar passage rate --it is worse than a number of NY schools behind them in the rankings -- St. Johns, Hofstra, NYLS, Albany and Pace -- and Pace is in the 4th tier.

Brooklyn could clear this up by explaining. But it benefits from silence -- US News published something so it must be true.

ummmmm noooooooo, just becuase its published does not mean it true. Also the only thing we know for sure is UNEWS made a mistake, as they say 87 but only list 85, either they made a mistake and meant 85, or they made a miatske and meant 87, but only published 85. Either way that's published, that's US news mistake and it can't both be true. I really hope your a pre-law becuase this is really bad reasoning all the way around.

Logged

*In clinical studies, Matthies was well tolerated, but women who are pregnant, nursing or might become pregnant should not take or handle Matthies due to a rare, but serious side effect called him having to make child support payments.

ummmmm noooooooo, just becuase its published does not mean it true. Also the only thing we know for sure is UNEWS made a mistake, as they say 87 but only list 85, either they made a mistake and meant 85, or they made a miatske and meant 87, but only published 85. Either way that's published, that's US news mistake and it can't both be true. I really hope your a pre-law becuase this is really bad reasoning all the way around.

He was being facetious. He's saying the mistake (if it is a mistake) regarding the reported LSAT score can only benefit Brooklyn because many people won't bother to check. Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension.